The Science of Sleep

The Science of Sleep ***

Strangely unique, and slightly disappointing, Michel Gondry presents his follow up to the brilliant "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Using a similar type of formula, dreams and relationships, Gondry manages to once again form his own little world, except this time it doesn't seem quite as magical as his previous film. And thatc ould have something to do with the casting, or maybe because Gondry didn't have help with the writing from Charlie Kaufman, probably the most original writer around at the moment. Gondry penned the script himself, and I do wish he gave it to Kaufman for a rewrite. They make a good team. With Gondry's original vision, and Kaufman's original writing, "The Science of Sleep" could have been more magical than it was. However, it's still worth seeing, as once its over, it's easy to agree that you've never ever seen anything like it before, and it probably will be a long time before you ever do.

Gael Garcia Bernal takes a break from the darker roles of the past, including "Bad Education" and "The King," stars as Stephane, a young Mexican living in France in his mother's house. His father recently died, and he sleeps in his old bedroom, complete with a children's bed, and a room cluttered with his various inventions that he wants to perfect. His recent project is a one second time machine, which brings you back exactly one second in time. His mother gets him what she calls a "graphic design" job, but its really a copy and paste job at a calender company. Stephane hates his new job, and barely comes into work. He gets a new neighbor. Stephanie, and he is instantly smitten with her, and believes that she is the same. They have great times together, and are planning on creating a short animated film with cellophane as the water, and pieces of cotton as clouds. But, his happiness is not all it seems, as most of the time, Stephane is dreaming and thinks that he is awake. Since he was a little boy, he's confused dreams with reality, and he never can tell which is which. So when he takes a toy horse of Stephanie's, fiddles around with the inside until the toy is able to run, and breaks back into her house to return it, she seems him breaking into the house, but his invention of the horse was just a dream. In a different world, the two might just be perfect for each other, but Stephane's dream world just confuses everything, and makes everything much worse.

It's a hard story to explain, and at times an even harder one to watch. It could be confusing, because at times its hard to tell what is a dream and what isn't. It requires multiple viewings, and for some it'll be hard to get through even once. But I enjoyed this film. It was something very different, and the perfect remedy for film goers tired of the same old Hollywood BS. Gondry uses strange special effects, with the use of stop motion animation, which seems to be making a comeback between this and "The Life Aquatic." It's put to good use,and makes the dream sequences even odder. I've heard alot of complaint about the animation, but it's useful. People are just spoiled with state of the art special effects, that they can't take the time to just stop and enjoy the old. I've lately been watching old reruns of "Pee Wee's Playhouse," and watching the claymation there is just classic. The relationship between Stephane and Stephanie isn't as delightful to watch as "Eternal Sunshine," but the two have different morals. "Eternal Sunshine" was about staying together, throughout the good and the bad, and accepting how your partner is. Without giving anything away, "The Science of Sleep" is a much more depressing and upsetting film than the former. I left the theatre wanting to blow my brains out. And at times it is tedious, some of the characters, especially Alain Chabat who played one of Stephane's co-workers, the comic relief of much of the film, just overstayed their welcome. And it's also alot to take in. Gondry packs the script with this and that and this and that, until your head is prepared to explode. But dispite it's flaws, "The Science of Sleep" is one of the most original films I've ever seen, and I have to recommend it based on that. Maybe in quality, it deserves a lower rating, but it certainly is special, and unlike anything that has ever been seen before.

The Last Kiss

The Last Kiss ***

I was expecting "The Last Kiss" to be more like "Garden State 2," but in the end, I was surprised at how much of a worthy commentary on relationships and lifestyles it really was. I mean, really-the story of a confused man meeting a quirky young woman, and then deciding to change his entire plans in life. It sounds alot like "Garden State." To also note how strange it is, it was written by Paul Haggis, the writer of such strongly dramatic films as "Crash," and "Million Dollar Baby." It's nice to have him write something a little lighter. While "The Last Kiss" does have it's heavy and intense moments, it's fight scenes are obvious more light than a little girl getting shot, or a boxer getting punched in the face. At least he's trying to range himself as a writer. Maybe Zach Braff should range himself as an actor, but that's a point for later on.

Here, Braff plays Michael, who just turned thirty, and is facing the rest of his life. His beautiful girlfriend, Jenna, who is basically himself in the opposite gender, is having their baby, and wants to buy a house with him. She wants to begin starting their family. He, however, freaks out, and begins to question everything in his life. He looks at his friends. On one side, there is Chris, whose wife just had a baby and he is miserable. She is always yelling at him, and making him ashamed. And then there is Kenny, who isn't tied down at all, and is having the time of life being with a different woman every night. And he sees Jenna's parent,s who are having problem of their own. Her father doesn't seem to be paying attention to her mother, and she leaves him. He fears that he'll become that way, and Jenna will leave him too. At a wedding, he meets Kim, a college girl, whose only twenty, with her whole life ahead of her. Nothing is planned out, and she has the power to do whatever she wants. And thats appealing to him. He begins to hang out with her, on a strictly friendly way, but it's obvious that she wants more from him. And it all lands to one night, and one crucial moment, where Michael is forced to make a decision. Should he do what he wants to with this strange brunette girl, or should he do what is right, and what he truly does want, and stay with the woman thats meant for him?

The time frame in "The Last Kiss" is trademark Paul Haggis. The main events of the film take place over the course of one night, where we jump from character to character. It had that intensity of "Crash," which was strange because this was a lighter romance film, and yet it had me on the edge of my seat at times. It starts slow, but as the story unravels, you get deeper and deeper involved in it. It's far from perfect, but it's an interesting look at relationships, and how people choose to live their lives. Jacinda Barrett as Jenna is a contining revelation, as she proved in "Ladder 49." She is the best performance in the whole film, and her shouting scenes are so realistic, that at times I felt that she was yelling at me. I am getting a little tired of Zach Braff, who I just keep seeing playing the same role. He is a fine actor, always doing the same things. While he didn't have anything to do with the writing or directing of "The Last Kiss," he played the same part-a confused, thirty year old man, haunted by temptation. Maybe he'll try and spice things up a little bit.

The ads for "The Last Kiss" seem to promote a light hearted, romantic comedy, but whoever walks in under this assumption will be shocked by how realistic and more dark it really is. I did say that it was a light film, but that's compared to something like "Crash." Even its ending, which could seem Hollywood and lame, isn't the closure that everyone would infer. It could go either way, and it's obvious that while we won't see anymore of what happens, this is something that will go on for a long time. I enjoyed this one, it's entertaining, and it's a good film about relationships. Maybe not the best film to take a girlfriend to see ,especially if you're starting to decide to get married and settle down, but one to see, for sure. And if only for Jacinda Barrett's yelling. She was THAT good. . .

The Black Dahlia

The Black Dahlia **

"The Black Dahlia" appears to have been a labor of love, and it certainly has the makings of a great movie. But it ends up being overdone, and slightly self-indulgent, and talky, and boring, and something really not worth seeing-ever. And it's a shame. It's not that "The Black Dahlia" is something terrible, but simply, a disappointment. The attempt to revive the film noir seems to have been shot dead, as much as some of the characters in the film. It's first mistake is that it casts Josh Hartnett in the lead role. I really have never seen any film that he's in with a worthy preformance by him, and to put him as a lead role in something like this is just a bad idea. He doesn't work from minute one, and seeing him trying to put on a Humprey Bogart type character was just a joke. I laughed at some of the things he said.

Hartnett plays Bucky Bleichert, a dectective who just has a new partner, Lee Blanchard. The two have been given the nicknames Mr. Ice and Mr. Fire, respectively, after a promotional boxing match where the two met. Bucky, Lee, and Lee's wife Kay, have formed a large friendship. The three are constantly in each others company, and Bucky is even able to just walk right into Lee's house. He describes it as the happiest time of his life, as the two cops form a great team, capturing some of L.A's hottest criminals. This all changes with the murder of Betty Short, an aspiring actress. Her murder was declared the most grisly in all of Los Angeles history. The photos of her dead were not even make public. She was found cut in half, with a large cut from her right ear to her left. Bucky and Lee want to find the murderer, as it slowly begins to eat away at their normal lives. Lee becomes the opposite of who he usually is. He is always angry and annoyed, punching walls and knocking things off of tables. Bucky gets distracted, slightly, by a lady Madeleine Prescott, who begins to seduce him as a way to keep her name out of the papers. And as the case deepens, he begins to see everyone who is involved, and they are not exactly who he expected.

"The Black Dahlia" takes its cues from the classic films noirs of the 40's and 50's. The characters talk with the lingo of the time. They get straight to the point and don't beat around the bush. They talk quickly and their actions are always over the top. At one point, during a sex scene, one character rips off the tablecloth, complete with glass, plates, and a half eaten turkey. And of course, as with all films set in the past, everybody smokes. I almost got lung cancer just watching all these characters smoke. The set design is something to behold, and director Brian de Palma had that down pat. He created a stylish film, but not one that ever involves the audience. I really didn't care about anything that happened here. He has created a technical masterpiece, but failed in everything else he tried to do. Thinking about it, this should have been a great film. It had the makings of one. It was a dark, noir, detective story, with amazing visuals, but it only passed in one of those four elements. Out of the four lead actors-Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson, Aaron Eckheart, and Hilary Swank-the best one is probably the fifth. Mia Kirshner, who played Betty Short, is a wonder to watch, and her scenes from the best. Ironically, we never actually see her being herself, just the screen tests that the cops watch to try and understand who she was. We don't understand her better than anybody else in the film, and whenever we actually se eher, she's trying to play a part, and land a role. It shrouds more mystery around her, and Kirshner plays it so that we want to know more. I was hoping for more screen test scenes than there were. Eckheart is also very good here, as the cop whose life is slowly eaten away as a result of the murder. ee truly has grown over the years. Earlier in the year he proved that he is leading man material with "Thank You for Smoking," and yet again with "Conversations with Other Women." He is probably one of the most underrated actors around right now.

"The Black Dahlia" is the classic critics line-All style and no substance. It never really knows what it wants to be. At times it is a dectective story, of the cops trying to find the killers. At times it is a story of obsession, and how the murder affects the lives of everyone who comes into its path. At times it is a story of the fallen friendships of three people, and their slowly crumbling lives. It jumps from focus to focus, never settling on one, and never letting me care about one. If de Palma put as much effort into the story and structure as he did in the visuals and set design, he could have had one of the best films of the year. He falls short, but a mile. "The Black Dahlia" hopefully will get a few technical nominations, but that is where the line must be drawn. A sad, and sorry, disappointment.

Everyone's Hero

Everyone's Hero **1/2

For the first time for as long as I can remember, all computer animated films-or even any animated film for that matter-has been about talking animals getting into wild and crazy adventures. It never ended. The last time there was an animated film about actual people was. . . .well, I can't even think of one. There is the exception of "The Incredibles," but they were superheros. I don't know if you should count that. "Everyone's Hero" is about people without any special kind of power, except the powers of having positive moral values, which touches into the moral of the entire thing. It's a childrens movie where the main character is an actual child. Sure, there is a talking baseball and a talking baseball bat, neither of which we ever actually find out why they talk, but for the most part, this movie is about people. For once, I was able to see animated human beings, in an average computer generated format, instead of having to sit through another film about a talking cow.

"Everyone's Hero" has material for kids and adults. You could probably even tell which one is which. The story is about Yankee Irving, a little boy with a heart of gold. All he wants to do is to be able to play baseball with the kids in the sandlot, but his problem is, he's not the greatest player in the world. When he is shunned by the kids yet again, he retires to his home, bringing out a dusty old baseball from under a beat up car. When he gets home, he learns that the baseball can talk, and it has the voice of Rob Reiner All the ball wants is to be able to go back to the sandlot to die in peace. "Baseball is a game about lost dreams", says the magical ball. His dream was to be a homerun ball, but it slowly failed once he was hit as a foul one. Yankee's dad works in Yankee Stadium, and while visiting one night, Dad takes him into the locker room, and leaves him alone with Babe Ruth's classic bat, Darling. The next day, the bat is missing, and Yankee is the prime suspect. However, something strange happened that night. Yankee was shooed out of the room by a security guard. However, it's not just any guard, it's a ball player for the Chicago Cubs, Lefty Maginnis. His team is playing the Yankees in the World Series, and he steals the bat so that they don't have a chance at winning. Yankee is on to the ball player, and goes on a journey by foot and by train to retrieve Babe's bat, who, surprise!, also is able to talk.

Yankee learns alot on his quest for Babe Ruth. He learns that it's not about how you play, but about the actual player itself. And sadly, he also becomes a bigger Yankee fan along the way, something that we really don't need more of in this world. "Everyone's Hero" gives the fathers and sons something to bond over. The son can enjoy the talking objects, which in reality don't talk, or even move without an outside force. And the father can enjoy the baseball element, unless he's a Red Sox or Mets fan. "Everyone's Hero" isn't a perfect children's flick, but it's tolerable, and it's not something that the older viewers will groan about. It's mildly entertaining, and slightly humorous. And like I said, I would like to see more animation about people, and less on the animals. Every single animated film with animals was starting to look exactly the same for a while. Part of this film was directed by Christopher Reeve, before he died, and once he did, it was taken over by Dana Reeve, who also died a few months later. I think they'd be happy with the result, because their labor of love turned into something entertaining, and a worthy addition into the world of cheap, modern animated films. It certainly does beat "The Ant Bully," and "Barnyard," and at least it tries to be different. And unfortunetely, I bet it stems a few new Yankee fans, but that's a battle for another day. . .

The Ground Truth

The Ground Truth *1/2

"The Ground Truth" is set to come out on DVD in the next two weeks or so, but Focus Features was so impressed with the documentary, that they decided to release it in select theatres for a week before the DVD. But, it really isn't too impressive, and not worth paying to see it on the big screen. I am just starting to get tired of all these anti-war documentaries. Even the pro-war documentaries. . . almost anything political really. "The Ground Truth" has a very simple message: Don't go to war. It's bad. It's told with alot of personal interviews, with actual soliders who just came back from Iraq. And they all have the same thing to say, and many of them share the same experiences. It starts off with a comparision of Army commericals, and commericals for cigarettes. Cigarettes some with a warning, telling people of the health risks and the dangers involved. However, being in the Army could sometimes be worse than smoking a cigarette, and those commericals don't come with a warning.

The entire process just gets repetive. Every solider had the same thing to say. War is bad. They saw horrible things. One soldier tells a story about seeing a woman on the side of the road, walking towards the car with the soliders in. And one of them had to option to either let her go, or to shoot her because she might be equipped with bombs. And he shoots her, and when she lands to the ground, he sees that in her hands was a white flag, trying to call out truce to them all. The filmmakers also try to provide a dramatic filming style. At one point, one of the soliders is telling a story about them loosing their hand and shattering their legs. Throughout the entire story, the camera pans out slowly, revealing that he has a fake plastic arm, and is sitting in a wheelchair.

I just understand how many of these soliders feel, and I didn't really need to see a 79 minute film telling me. This is strongly anti-war, warning the people that are excited to be going into combat that they won't come back the same. There were many eye-rolling lines, for example "I may not be hurt, but I am a casuality of war," or "The way that he came back isn't the same man that he was when he left." "The Ground Truth" seems to not even try to say something original or bold. One of the soliders even had a disfigured face, for effect, but only him. It's a poorly made documentary, and I don't understand why Focus even bothered giving it a theatre release. It's fine as a direct to video, or something that you'd see on PBS. Not for the theatre experience.

Confetti

Confetti *1/2

As time goes on, and I am exposed to more and more films of certain genres, I have slowly come to the conclusion that I am not a huge fan of the mockumentary. There have been exceptions, but, for example, the films of Christopher Guest will never ever make the cut for a top ten list. And neither will "Confetti," a British film that seems to take a candle out of Guest's book(no pun intended) in the fact that it takes outlandish characters, lets the actors improvise everything they say, and resulting in a painfully unfunny product.

Jimmy Carr, a sometimes funny actor who appears more in the trailer than the actual film, plays Antoni, the owner and founder of Confetti Magazine. At the start, he declares that he is a bride's best friend, and he also isn't gay. Really didn't find much to laugh at from that first line. He has an idea for a new contest, where the magazine hires two wedding planners, and have them plan three weddings for the couple with the most original wedding idea. And the winner gets a house, which we never see, aside from an artist's vision of it. Couple Number One is Matt and Sam, a couple who want to do a musical wedding, where the entire thing is on a stage, and they sing their vows. Of course, they both can't sing, and when they do sing together, it's always off key. They seem to get some benefits, but they are the favorite to win. Couple Number Two is Isabelle and Josef, the big tennis couple, where they want to have a tennis themed wedding. Complete with giant tennis balls running along the sides as they give their vows. And then Couple Number Three, the naturalists, Joanna and Michael. They live in a little commune with other people like them, and they want to get married wearing nothing at all. This provides controversy at the magazine, where if that couple wins, there is no way that they can appear naked on the cover. And as the big day looms nearer and nearer, it becomes a mad race to win the house, and to really win each other.

There is a kind of message somewhere in "Confetti." It's not where and the way that you get married, but the people that you share it with. At least that's what I got out of it. It's really not very funny, and it had the power to be. I just think that these comedians that do improvised dialouge always think they are more talented than they really are. It does take guts, and it is a gift to be able to come up with dialouge off the top of you're head, but it often seems a little pretentious. It also tries to be a satire, but it doesn't take on anything daring enough to bother to satirize. Very much like last months "Surviving Eden," this one thinks that it's more daring than it really is. It also thinks that it's touching new ground, and it doesn't. The characters are quirky, and every now and than worth a laugh, but the writing and the situations were nothing special, and nothing memorable. And sometimes it even drifted into some sentimental parts, which didn't seem to balence with the flow. And the mockumentary style didn't seem to be the focus for about half the film. I was aware that they were being watched with a camera, but I really didn't feel that the actors did. It was inconsistent. And I am a big fan of British humor. By the time "Confetti" reaches it's credits, it's nothing but festive, but a long, unfunny, and predictable mess. For better British films, see "Keeping Mum," which is also in theatres, and a much better product.

Keeping Mum

Keeping Mum ***

I really do enjoy British humor, as well as the acting. Whenever I see a British film, I prepare myself for top notch acting, a clever story, and jokes that have me rolling in the asles. Of course, the humor that is normally found on the BBC is an aquired taste, and those of you who don't find "The Office," or "Keeping Up Appearances" comical, will most likely dispise "Keeping Mum," one of the best comedies in a while. It also features Rowan Atkinson not being goofy, and using his real voice. If you don't know that name, you probably would know Atkinson as Mr. Bean, the classic character who he usually plays. Here, though, he is able to act a little more normal, and he proves that he can do a regular character as well as a goofy and zany one. It also has Patrick Swanyze, in his best role, because he is able to make fun of the fact that he is pretty much a terrible actor. Very much like David Hassolhoff in "Click," only with a more intelligent storyline.

"Keeping Mum" begins with the conviction of a young pregnant women, who while on the train, is caught with the headless bodies of her husband and his mistress in her leather trunk. Forty three years later, we are introduced to the Goodfellow clan. The father, Walter, is the town vicar, who is concentrating on writing the perfect sermon for a key note address that he has to make for a convention. He has a title, "God's Mysterious Ways," and nothing more. He is so caught up in his assignment, that he doesn't even notice that his wife needs care and love, which is why she begins to have an affair with her golf instructor. And the fact that his daughter is a mini-Lolita, and his son is getting constantly bullied by a gang. The town is small, however the population of fifty-seven has just become fifty-eight, with the introduction of a new housekeeper in the Goodfellow house. Enter Grace, a kind, sweet, and innocent old woman, with delivers her leather trunk two days early. Grace begins to see that strange things are happening in the family, which could destory the peace and serenity that the family could have. And so, she begins to clean house, quite literally, as she tends to the matters at hand, in a quite strange and dark way, while the oblivious Walter continues his quest for the perfect sermon.

Even though Atkinson does turn in a terrific preformance, I really don't understand why he got the top billing. If anything, Kristen Scott Thomas deserves that mention, as she really is the key character, and the center of the whole story. But, leave it to the movie making business to never give the actress a lead billing. She is always second to the male. In many cases, the actor is usually the promient character, but in this case, I feel that they should give credit where credit is due. It's a very funny film, and is dark comedy at it's finest. Maggie Smith really does bring humanity to her dark character, and I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a nomination at the end of the year. The Academy really does love to honor those vets. The comedy here is subtile, and there are really no plot twists to be had. We know that the woman from the beginning of the film is Grace, and it's pointless to try and convince anybody otherwise in the description. It is straightforward fun, with a great script by Richard Russo, who also wrote the underrated "The Ice Harvest" last year. The laughs aren't gut-busting, but they are there, and they will make you smile. The entire film will. It's smart, clever, and it has many fine preformances. The surprise high box office gross for the weekend makes it apparent that the British humor is not lost in America, and hopefully it'll help "Keeping Mum" to sprend. And I hope that Atkinson does more straight roles, instead of the brillant physical comedy which he is famous for. And he also has a very good voice, which is never really heard, especially when he is doing the "Bean" character. There is a great scene, where he is laying in bed, looking at his wife in the mirror. His voiceover reads out the "Song of Solomon" as he begins to fall in love with his wife all over again. And there is also much irony, in the fact that in the end, after everything is said and done, he still has no clue as to the action that transpired. I very highly enjoyed "Keeping Mum" and hope to see more British comedies in the future.

Viva Pedro Part Five: Live Flesh

Viva Pedro Part Five
Live Flesh ***

"Live Flesh" is the fifth film in the "Viva Pedro" restrospective series that I've been watching of late, and out of all of the ones I've seen, this is the first that is not an original story idea from Almodovar. And it is apparent, probably from the second scene onward. It doesn't tell a story about groups of women trying to change their lives, or about transexuals. It does have some classic complicated storylines, and strange characters, but it isn't an original Almovodar, which makes it very interesting to watch. As usual, the storyline is absurd, and something that could never possibly happen in real life, and yet, Almodovar writes and directs characters which seem so realistic, that the outlandish plot seems as if this kind of stuff is happening in our own backyards.

"Live Flesh" was originally released in 1997. This story begins with the birth of Victor. In a classic Almodovar scene, which I suspect was something original that wasn't in the original novel on which this film is based. After all, it does have a crazy mother-like character giving birth to a young women in a bus. And after the baby is born, yes, the mother-like character cuts off the umblical cord with her teeth. And then, the story takes a more dramatic turn. Twenty years later, Victor is a pizza delivery man, who has a date with Elena, a woman who he lost his virginity to in a bathroom stall. Elena was stoned at the time, and wants nothing to do with Victor. Victor goes to her house, which results in a gun, and the arrival of two cops who are answering to the plea of a neighbor who heard a gunshot. One of the cops is a drunk, who knows that his wife is cheating on him. The other is David, who ends up getting shot in the leg, and crippled for the rest of his life. Victor is sent to jail, and when he comes out four years later, he learns that his mother is dead, David is in a wheelchair, and Elena has married the cop. He bumps into her in the cemetary, where he also meets Clara, the wife of David's partner. And these five characters all begin to interconnect as attractions flair, and nothing will remain the same.

As in all Almodovar films, it's best to walk in not knowing really anything about the story. It's best to watch the plot unfold before you. He has a way of making all of his stories just happen, moment by moment. There are constant twists and turns, and nothing is ever really clear until the end. But it's always one hell of a ride. He managed to take this story, which isn's his, and make it one of his own. If it wasn't for the "based on the novel by" credit at the end, I would never have guessed that he didn't write it from his twisted mind. And even with all the crazy plot twists, and unbelievable story, he manages to deliver a happy ending, and a satisfying one. But what happens between point A and B is the kicker. Almodovar's direction is flawless. He uses a technique of using old movies and news clips and incorparating them into his story. For example, at one point, a woman is watching a movie on television. There is a gun shot in real life, and yet we don't see the actual bullet, but the bullet from the gun shot in the movie. It's a technique that he uses in almost all his films, and it's always effective, always clever, and it always fits perfectly. "Live Flesh" is a fine film, and a very entertaining one. It is sad, tragic, funny, erotic, and it goes by in what feels like ten minutes.

"Viva Pedro" continues next week with "Law of Desire."

The Covenant

The Covenant *1/2

"The Covenant" is just complete and utter trash. And it's not even done in a fun way. It's dark, grim, not very good to look at, and the characters are just gimmicks. It's just no fun at all. It odes have a basic story that could have been good enough, or at least something that's fun to do for a few hours. And it could've been the kind of film that warrented a few sequels-maybe turn it into a trilogy. Well, I think that's what they were hoping, possibly. The end does resolve the story, but it does leave it open for a sequel. I guess if it makes it's target amount of money, which it didn't, they could probably get a second flick out, but if they don't, then it doesn't really matter. The story if over with anyway.

"The Covenant" is about a group of four friends-Caleb, Pogue, Tyler, and Reid- who all have incredible powers. They are the descendents of the the original families that founded the Ipswich Colony in Massachusetts a few centuries ago. They are about to all turn eightteen, one at the time, which means that they are getting ready to "ascend." This means that they will recieve greater supernatural powers than the ones that they started with when they turned thirteen. This is both a good and bad thing. The need for the power becomes similiar to a drug, and it could go to a person's head. The same thing happened to Cabel's father, who died years before, mainly because his became hot-headed over the thirst for more power. It's also important not to be exposed. Many people like them, including their families, were hunted down and killed during the Salem Witch Trials. The kids are protected by a 300 year old covenant by the families, as a way to keep them safe. Ironically, this year there are alot of transfer students, like Sarah, who Caleb begins to start a fling with, but also Chase, who behaves very strangely. Caleb begins to suspect that Chase also is in possession of the powers, and the fact that it may or may not have already ascended, which would mean that he is in possession of far greater powers than any of them could have dreamed of.

"The Covenant" is very poor quality. The special effects are a little fun to watch, but the whole film is just completely dark and in shadows that I didn't even get a chance to appriciate them. It has many dull moments too, and I found myself checking the time more than I was involved in the movie. The acting is far far below satisfying, and I found it completely useless to have an opening credit sequence. It was the first time I ever sat through a three minute credit sequence where I actually knew not a single one of the names in front of me. They were better off just starting right away. And it's a typical PG-13 rating, with even a shower scene--oooo. And like in all PG-13 rated films, the girl in the shower always already has a towel inside the shower, to prevent having to get out to walk and get one, and preventing the viewer from seeing anything R rated. This is just more mindless drivel, which is alright sometimes, but here it's just not interesting or entertaining. I also really didn't understand some of the terms here either. For some reason, in the middle, these demon like creatures continue to appear, once in Caleb's car and once at the side of his bed. They were called "Darklings" but I really couldn't find any reason for them to bed in the film at all. To warn the characters of the evil afloat, yeah, but their actual purpose in this supernatural world was left unanswered. But then again, so were alot of things. "The Covenant" expects you to really buy into this fake world, without really much explaination about anything. I at least would have liked to understand how these people came to be, maybe even a little history. The text before the credits just wasn't enough. And the actual friendship between these people wasn't very believable either. Arg, this list doesn't end. There is far too much wrong here, which I would have forgave if the film was a little bit entertaining. It doesn't even strike that chord. One of the year's worst by far.

Hollywoodland

Hollywoodland ***

When the credits began to roll for "Hollywoodland" I was struck by the thought that Ben Affleck really wasn't too bad here. After a string of horrible, dreadful roles, including "Paycheck," and "Surviving Christmas," Affleck seems to be channeling the past him-the guy that was making movies before he starred in "Reindeer Games." And the rest of the cast too, Adrian Brody, Diane Lane, and Bob Hoskins, all gave such perfect performances, that it's all worth the price of the ticket. It's a true crime story, something that seems to have been coming out alot lately. And at the core of this crime story is a message that really should be told more often.

"Hollywoodland" begins with the cops arriving at the scene where a death took place. George Reeves, the actor that played Superman in a low-budget kids show, shot himself. The cops declare it a suicide right away, and dismiss any idea of foul play. However, Reeves mother doesn't trust anyone, especially Reeves wife, who waited forty-five minutes before calling the cops. The LAPD won't touch the case, and consider the entire thing over and done with. However, Reeves mother hires Louis Simo, a private investigator, who usually investigates wives whose husbands hired him to see if they were having any affairs. Louis isn't the happiest guy in the world. His wife is getting ready to be married to another man, his son is devastated by the news that the actor playing his favorite superhero killed himself, and to top it off, his girlfriend/partner seems to be fooling around with another man. Louis doesn't really want to get involved, but for the money, he decides to shake things up a little bit. He'll get attention onto the suspicion that Reeves killed himself, and that'll reopen the case, and it'll become the problem of the LAPD. Flashbacks tell of the story of Reeves, who was an actor with a small part in "Gone with the Wind," and now he is looking around for work. He meets and falls in love with the wife of the MGM president, Toni Mannix. She buys him a house, introduces him to her husband, Eddie Mannix, and gets the lead role in "Superman," while in the present day, Louis begins to dig up information about Reeves, and his mind shifts. Suddenly, maybe Reeves was murdered. A few people have the motive. . .

"Hollywoodland" on a few different levels. First of all, it touches much on the theme of identity, something that "Superman" always did. George Reeves wasn't able to go anywhere without being identified by Superman. Children would walk up to him, and want to try and hurt him. In the film, one kid even walks up to Reeves with a gun, wanting to shoot him so that the bullet would bounce off him. It discusses the role that television plays in the lives of children. Louis' son is so upset about the fact that George Reeves killed himself, that he even burns the Superman suit that his father bought him. They don't really understand the fact that it's an actor playing the character. They just see the character, and the fact that their hero is dead. The abrupt ending may be a little bit ambiguious for some viewings, but for me it struck just the right chord. The case about Reeves may not be solved, but the case about what happened to Superman is. There's a little bit of Superman in all of us. The cast plays everything perfectly. This isn't the type of film that I expect to be remembered come award season, but it's a great showcase for all these actors. It's very entertaining, well written, and directed with an interesting style. And the musical score fits the time period well-throwing off a noirish feel. It may feel a little long, and looses a little bit of steam towards the end, but "Hollywoodland" is one of the best bets at the theatre at the moment, unless you're still catching up from the summer season.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

This Film Is Not Yet Rated ***1/2

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is one of the best documentaries that I've seen in a long time. It answers some common questions that you always kind of think about when you have nothing better to do, but never bother doing any research on the topic. And that topic is the MPAA rating system. Everybody knows what it is. Every film is given a rating. G, which means that film is for everyone. PG, which means that the film may have some questionable content. PG-13, which means that it may have strong questionable content. R, where nobody under the age of seventeen can be present with a legal guardian present, and finally, the big cheese, NC-17, where not a single person under the age of seventeen is allowed in the audience. Now, for the most part, people just kind of ignore the ratings. At the theatre I work in, I've seen people see some of the bloodiest horror movies with their seven year old children. I may shake my head at the fact that they are doing it, but they do it nonetheless. And then there are those who follow the rating system like a Bible. I have friends who aren't allowed to see anything that is rated R, simply because they are not the proper age. And then there are the middle people. The ones who don't really care, but like to know about the system. After all, nobody really knows about the process of how film are rated. We all kind of take it for granted. But seriously,

1) Who does get to rate the films?
2) What are the standards?
3) What part of the questionable content do the raters focus on the most?

These questions, and many more, are attempted to be answered by documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick, who decides to tackle the MPAA. To start with the first question, nobody really knows who the raters are. They are supposed to be "the averge American parents, of children between the ages of 5 and 17." The raters get into the MPAA building through a secret entrance, and are never introduced to anybody as who they are. It would be too much "pressure" for them, says the head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti. To find out who these people are, Kirby Dick decides to hire a private detective, and him, the private eye, and the private eyes apprentice, go on a manhunt, tracking down all the people responsible for the ratings. This investigation is intercut with little interviews by popular directors, who have all been screwed over by the MPAA.

It turns out that independent film directors are targeted more to harsher ratings. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who do TV's "South Park" made a little independent film in the early 90's, which was given an NC-17, without any advice about how to trim it down to an R rating. However, when they were hired by a big movie studio to make "South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut," they recieved an NC-17 ratings. but had a nice long list of things they could cut to give it an R. The problem with the NC-17 rating is that big studios won't touch it. A whole audience is left out because nobody under seventeen is allowed in. In addition, television commericals can't be run, and marketing is strongly limited. How will people be able to see the movie if they never even heard of the movie in the first place? In addition, the MPAA seems to focus more on sex than violence. A movie could have a character running down a hallway, shooting anything that moves, without showing any blood, and get a PG-13, but god forbid there is any nudity. Many films have gotten an NC-17, simply because of a brief second of nudity.

When Kirby Dick submitted this film to the MPAA it recieved an NC-17. One could say it's because of some of the graphic images in the film, which are just featured in montages of scenes that warrented an NC-17 rating, but one could also say that Dick got screwed because of the focus os his documentary. The MPAA was mad that someone would make a film about them, that they completely shut it out. Dick tried to get the film appealed to a lower rating, but that system has a whole endless set of rules that you need to see to really understand. It's completely silly.

All in all, the rating system is indeed flawed. Dick's film is a bit biased, but it's also the truth. Look at some of the ratings in the past, I have been shocked by some of the reasons why some films are given R. For example, a wonderful film from two years ago called "The Merchant of Venice" was given an R rating because of four women standing, looking over a bridge, without any shirts on. What is the big deal? Dick pleas for a better system. A system that is relied more on the truth, instead of being so secretive. And he is right in what he is asking for. The MPAA rating system is simply another form of censorship. It is blocking what is right and what isn't right to see. It's possible to see some of the most horrid images on the news, and yet seeing a naked male or female is wrong. Art is art, and it doesn't need to be blocked. It shouldn't be.

As a documentary, Dick is very successful. Intercutting the investigation with interviews goes very smooth. The investigation is fun, and the interviews really do catch interest. I learned alot of things about the MPAA that I didn't know before. In addition, there were alot of fun stories about directors getting screwed over by the NC-17 rating, including stories from John Waters, whose last film was given an NC-17 rating. He asked why they rated it that, and what he could do to get it to an R, to which they replied "It's hard to say. We stopped taking notes about twenty minutes in."

Sherrybaby

Sherrybaby **

"Sherrybaby" is just a repeat. A repeat of so many other movies, that I would need more than two hands to count them. And it is indeed a film that has such an obvious script and story, that it's up to the actors to make something out of it worthwhile. And while Maggie Gyllenhaal is alright here, it's nothing groundbreaking. A nomination for her come award season would be a waste. It's simply a story that has been done so many times that I'm tired of it. I don't need to see yet another story about a former junkie who gets out of prision, and tries to reclaim the love of the daughter she left behind. Oh, and right, she has to fall off the wagon at least once before the credits roll.

Gyllenhaal plays Sherry Swanson, who, as I said above, recently was released from jail for stealing drugs and put onto parole. Her first request is to be able to go to New Jersey, so that she can visit her daughter, who has been living with her brother and his wife while she was away. We learn that she didn't even live in a very bad neighborhood. The neighborhood that she lives in is rich and pleasant to be in, and its also where she grew up. Her spiral into drugs was a result of something deeper than the area that she lives in. Her daughter, Alexis, is at first happy to see her mother, and runs around and jumps up and down while saying "mommy, mommy." By the next visit ,things have changed, and it turns out that Sherry's sister in law, Marcia, has been telling her not to call her "mommy," but to refer to her as "Sherry." This upsets Sherry, who wants to be able to raise her daughter on her own. So, she decides to turn her life back around. She wants to stay clean, which proves as a challenge. She wants to get a decent job, as a schoolteacher, but has to give the man in charge a favor in order to get it. She joins a support program, but gets kicked out of the house only a few days after starting because of a fight that she has with a roommate. Sherry finds that the path to change isn't going to come instant to her, and she will have to work for it.

Hell, I'm starting to roll my eyes just writing what the story was about. There's alot of scenes where Gyllenhaal talks about how much she is going to change for her daughter. When her parole officer searches her, you can hear her mutter under her breath, "I'm strong. I'm strong." She even dyes her hair black, from the original dirty blonde. Is that really supposed to be some kind of character development? Is this sounding familar at all? There was a film earlier this year called "Clean," which dealt with almost exactly the same premise. The junkie wife of a rock star goes to jail for buying the drugs that killed her husband, and when she gets out she wants to start a relationship with her son that is living with her in laws. The difference between the two isn't the story, but the fact that some more effort went into the last one. The performances were spot on, and somehow "Clean" didn't seem like a carbon copy of every movie ever made like this. "Sherrybaby" is too obvious for its own good. How about the scene where one of the reasons why Sherry went into the world a drugs was revealed? It's between her and her father, where the final climax of the scene is so awkward and completely laughable. It seems misplaced, and doesn't even belong in the movie at all. I don't want to say what is revealed, but I leave the subject with the question: could they have come up with something a little better than that? First time director Laurie Collyer simply has nothing to say. She is making a film just to make a film. It is simply unneeded. Nobody really needs to see this at all. Fans of Gyllenhaal, maybe might want to give it a looksee, but the rest of you, don't bother.

Viva Pedro Part Four: The Flower of My Secret

Viva Pedro Part Four:
The Flower of My Secret **1/2

For the first time since becoming interested in the works of Almodovar, I have seen a disappointment. I have been spoiled by his interesting stories, his brilliant combination of drama and dark humor, and his compelling and dense characters. However, with "The Flower of My Secret" all the usual elements are there, except they done very weakly, as if he put zero effort into the writing process. This was just a poorly written film. Almodovar obviously put more work behind the camera than he did planning the story.

Originally released in 1995, "The Flower of My Secret" tells the story of Leo, a middle aged woman whose husband is always abroad in the army. On the rare chance that she is able to see him, it is obvious that their marriage will not work out for much longer. Leo is a writer, but she doesn't want to reveal anything about her personal life. To cure this problem, she writes under a fake name, Amanda Gris, and tells wonderful romance stories, with characters whose problems all end up alright in the end. However, she doesn't want to write these kind of stories anymore, and has come up with a dark thriller story which her publishers refuse to publish under the name Amanda Gris. And to top it off, her story, entitled "The Cold Storage Room," suddenly has a plot very similar to a movie that was just greenlit, leading Leo to think that somebody stole it. And then there is her mother, an overly dramatic woman who lives with her other daughter, and always talks about moving out of the house, and returning back to the village where she used to live. Along with wanting to change her literary style, Leo has to change a few other things in her life. She meets a newspaper editor who suddenly becomes interested in her. But changing your entire life isn't as easy as it sounds. . .

As his other films prove, Almodovar understands women, and seems to encompass a part of himself into his female characters. Leo wants to change her writing style, and this does seem to be a bit of a change for Almodovar. This isn't the same type of film as "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown," and it's not the Almodovar I've come to know and love. And while change is usually a good thing, it just doesn't work here. I found myself bored through much of Leo's journey to change. The humor is certainly there, mostly with the over dramatic scenes, where Leo believes that she is the only person in the world. Take the scene where she puts on a pair of her husbands boots, as a tribute to him. She can't take them off, and she wanders around the streets, offering a homeless man a large sum of money if he can take her boots off. The world suddenly has to stop simply because she can't take a pair of boots off. Almodovar has the makings of a good story, but for some reason the execution was off. It's not a terrible film, but it's simply a disappointment. At this point, I've come to expect something always special from Almodovar, and it seems like that notion is simply a fantasy.

"Viva Pedro" continues next week with "Live Flesh."

Viva Pedro Part Three: Talk to Her

Viva Pedro: Part Three:
Talk to Her ***1/2

Once again, Pedro Almodovar gives us a film completely about women, only told through the lens of two men. It's about what women do to men sometimes, and how they always leave some kind of lasting impression. And it's about loneliness, friendship, love, and how all three of those could lead to tragic results. And out of all the films by Almodovar I've seen in this series, it's by far the strangest, darkest, and most dense piece of filmmaking that I have seen, maybe ever. I will not forget it.

"Talk to Her," originally released in 2002, is the story of two men, Benigno and Marco. Both of them sit next to each other by chance at a play, not knowing that years later they will be connected. Marco is a reporter, who is doing an article about the best female matador in the whole country, Lydia Gonzalez. However, the two of them fall into some kind of relationship, and years later they are still together. But, a tragic accident in a bullfight lands Lydia in a coma, and Marco alone and scared. And then he meets one of the nurses, Benigno, who was hired to take care of Alicia, another comatose patient, who was hit by a car on a rainy day four years ago. Benigno spends almost every day with Alicia, and when him and Marco form a strange friendship, he confesses that he is in love with her, and wants to marry her. After all, the two of the them get along better than most of the married couples that he knows.

And that's all I'm going to tell you. The beauty of these Almodovar films is that you never really know what is going to happen next. Before each of the films, I make sure that I know nothing about them, because every few minutes he offers some kind of twist or turn that I never see coming. And then afterwards, coming home, I'll read a little plot summery off a website, and just by reading the story doesn't give anything away. He has such a way with plots, taking us into a realm of the unusual and the bizarre. He also makes great characters. Here, we have an obsessed nurse, who looks at his patient everyday with no clothes on, and fantasizes about marrying her. However, we are not creeped out by him. I was never creeped out by Bengino. In fact, I felt sorry for the guy. He is human, and Almodovar treats him like one. He doesn't try and have us hate him with cheap plot devices.

The performances are all top notch. And the best is probably the beautiful and stunning Leonor Wattling, who is silent for three quarters of the film. Her talent is shown in the fact that the most interesting character who you can never take your eyes off of is actually just laying down for the entire movie. The films biggest problem is all in the first thirty minutes. It starts off on such a slow note before finally settling into the story, that I really can't call this a masterpiece. Parts in the beginning seemed a bit tacked on, as if Almodovar decided not to even start the story until well into the first twenty minutes. But the rest makes up for it. This is probably the most symbolic film I've seen. This should be shown in film classes. There's a scene that should be required viewing for everyone, even if they decide not to bother watching the movie. It is a segment shot like a silent film, with a man who drinks a potion that makes him shrink. It's called "Shrinking Lover," and tells what happened with his girlfriend now that he is small. It's the oddest thing you will ever see, and probably very funny when they actually filmed it.

I said this in the review for "All About My Mother." Almodovar loves writing about women, and in this case, he actually writes about women, only from the perpective of men. This movie isn't actually about two women, but what these two women do to these two men. And the actual problems that it causes them. Men are weak creatures, and succomb to the temptation and power of women so much that it just causes destruction and their downfall. Bengino and Marco become friends, but its not enough for everything that happens to them over the course of a few months.

Almodovar has crafted yet another great film, and one that should be remembered for years to come. As the series gets closer and closer to the finish, each week I find myself more and more exicted to see what his next offering is. I'll be upset with the last is done, and then "Volver" awaits. "Talk to Her" is nearly perfect, and has become mandatory viewing.

Viva Pedro continues soon with "The Flower of My Secret."

Red Doors

Red Doors *

Sadly, "Red Doors" doesn't take a look at a family down on its luck in an original way, and I know that it is possible to find an original approach to this subject. Instead, it takes a leaf out of every single family movie ever made, and jumbles it together into a mess of a movie, which is a shame because this one had the makings of a hidden gem. And also, the timing isn't right, because at the moment any film about a family simply pales in comparison to "Little Miss Sunshine," and I have a feeling that is the way it's going to be for a while.

It is a Chinese tradition that the color of red brings good luck, and the Wong family has taken that to heart by painting their door red. It's done as a way to bring good health and happiness to whoever comes inside. However, the color really isn't doing much to help them. The patriach of the family, Ed, has just retired from his job, and now he doesn't know what to do with himself. So, instead of watching television, he decides that he should just end his life. But, everytime he gets ready to step into the noose, or slit his wrist with a razor, there is a knock on the door. It's someone telling him that it's dinner time. And then there is his wife, who is very proper, and very tight on tradition. However, the three daughters of the family are anything but traditional. There is Samantha, the oldest, and the one who is getting ready to be married. However, she wants a white dress, as opposed to the traditional red dresses, and she is so distant from her husband that she answers the phone for a business call in the middle of their lovemaking. And then there is the middle child, Julie, a nurse who comes out of the closest, and begins a relationship with lesbian movie star Mia Scarlett. However. Mia doesn't really regard Julie in an interview, causing their love to be on the rocks. And then there is the youngest child, Katie, who has a little fued going on with another classmate, and the two play constant pranks on one another. So, the entire ninety minutes, we see the lives of the people in this family, good times and bad, blah blah blah.

It really isn't anything special. I will comment on the performance by Tza Ma as Ed. As proven in "The Ladykillers," he is an actor who can tell so much without really doing anything at all. And his silence offers so much comedy sometimes, that I just wish that Eddie Murphey would shut up for a while. But, the script seems like it was written by a two year old, copying everything that they see from better movies. Hell, even the youngest child in the beginning was wearing a shirt that mentioned God and Neitche. There's always a rebel, there's always an older child who is going through more problems than any of them. There is always the child with a dark secret that she doesn't want anybody in the family to find out. There's always some kind of rocky relationship between the mother and father. The script, written by director Georgia Lee, is nothing special, and focuses too much on the craziness and quirky nation of the characters, instead of finding a unique way of telling the story. Before this writing, I learned that CBS is trying to develop this film into a television series for the 2007 season, and I really hope that isn't done. Although it would be perfect for this. A film with a sitcom like script actually becoming a sitcom. "Red Doors" is a disappointment, and nothing special at all. At times it was dull, and even when it did give me a laugh or two, the laugh was cheap, and I really don't understand why I laughed in the first place. Whats funny about a mother fainting when she sees her daughter kissing another woman? Nothing really. I'm very upset that I didn't like this film, because Lee shows slight potential in the business. Maybe a few films down the road, we'll be able to see something truely original from her. After all, the film wasn't a total loss. It had a nice little ending, which was the only part that I really agreed on.

The Protector

The Protector *1/2

Now, I do enjoy these martial arts movies. Alot of them have some really interesting fight scenes. The stories are always a bit of a stretch, but for breathtaking action, this is the place to go. Often times, there are some amazing visuals, like "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." However, "The Protector" is pretty much one dull and lifeless image after another, with some of the most uninspired fight scenes that I've ever seen. We have newcomer Tony Jaa return with his follow up to "Ong Bak: The Thai Warrior." "Ong Bak" was terrific. Pretty to watch, to the point, with a somewhat alright story, and some stunning action sequences. It was clear that Jaa had talent. However, he seems to have taken a step down. He feels as if he proved himself with the previous film, and now he can just do whatever he wants to do. Not true.

Here, Jaa plays Kham, a young fighter whose father is killed by a man who is trying to steal his elephant. The elephant is a sign of honor and respect, and Kham decides to track down the man who stole the elephant to Sydney, Australia. Kham meets a dectective who speaks his language, and the two set off to find the elephant. However, he gets involved into something more deep and layered than what he first thought. He gets involved in a gang led by a woman who had to kill the two people that were above her to get the job as the leader, and a business scam that would touch the highest point in the Australia business circle.

Like I said above, in these movies plot isn't important. It's the martial arts sequences. Nobody is going to walk into "The Protector" looking for a great story, they are walking in to see some action. However, the action here is pretty by the book. Sure, it's fun to watch Jaa as he does his own stunts, but he didn't do anything breaktaking here. In "Ong Bak," my mouth was wide open the entire time, watching, and taking in everything that Jaa did. Here, he punches people in the face, kicks them, no gravity defying stunts. In addition, the film was poorly edited for the United States. Once again, the Weinstein Brothers screw up another imported film. Here, so many scenes have been edited, that I really wonder how much of the actual original story was there. And I wouldn't mind that the film was edited, but I minded that it was so damn obvious. There was a fade in at one point to a room with about four people, and an English overdub said a line, and then there was a fade out. At one point, two characters were talking in a car, there was a fade out, and when it faded in again, there was suddenly this big action scene in a house that was on fire for no reason at all. It just didn't make any sense. Scenes were cut to the point that whatever the story was it didn't even make sense anymore.

And another thing. The film was partially in English and partially in Thai. And some of the characters speak English, and yet they decided to overdub the English speaking actors with different lines. This was just a poor effort at trying to translate this film for Hollywood, and it was sickening. So, with a story butchered to the point where it didn't even exist anymore, and action scenes that weren't worth a damn, "The Protector" was a very bad film. Maybe it's actual version was good, but whatever Hollywood did to it, it didn't agree with it. This is just lazy importing. I really hope that Jaa picks up again. "Ong Bak" was a martial arts masterpiece, and this one is just a poor effort. I want Jaa to blow me away, and I know that he has the power to. I've seen him at his best.

Looking for Kitty

Looking for Kitty **1/2

Ed Burns is back again, for the second time in less than two months, with "Looking for Kitty." And with a plot summery that sounds as if it's something different from Burns, watching it shows that it is really just more of the same. Maybe with a little more heart, but with two guys, bonding with one another, and trying to rediscover themselves. Only this time, they are joined by some other colorful character. Oh wait, that is still the formula for every Ed Burns movie ever made. But, this one seems to have a little more heart than usual, and for some reason I was drawn into the lives of all these characters. It's really not that bad a film at all.

Ed Burns plays Jack, a lonely ex-cop who still can't get over the death of his wife. Instead of being on the police force, Jack instead gets into the private investigator business, happy that his life will now be a little private. He gets a new case. It's Abe, a baseball coach from Peakskill, whose wife Kitty went out to lunch one afternoon and never came back. That was six months ago, and all Abe wants to do is confront her, and to find out exactly why she left him. He explains that she thought that he cared more about his baseball team than he did about her. This is proven when he makes a little bedroom in the attic for a mistreated teammate, and the fact that he also tutors one of them in calculus. Abe is a good man, but Kitty just wants a little bit of attention. And so, Abe pays Jack a little more money so he can tag along on the investigation, and the two form somewhat of a bond. Jack is a sad soul. He doesn't even like to eat inside of restaurants because he doesn't want to be seen by anyone. Instead, he eats outside, under awnings or on little benches. And they bump into a bunch of colorful characters, including the landlord KK, an attractive neighbor, and a drunken woman in town on business who continues to try and get Abe into bed. But most importantely, the two find things about one another that helps each of them in the longrun.

"Looking for Kitty" is a film about very lonely people, and how they handle all of it. Jack is still recovering over the loss of his wife, while Abe is trying to save his marriage before he ends up like Jack. And then there are the other characters, who we don't really know very well, but we know enough about them to know that they can't really go on the path they are on for much longer. The landlord comments that nobody has said "Goodnight" to him in ages. The woman in the bar is constantly drunk, and all she wants is to talk to someone. The neighbor doesn't really have much of an explaination, but a nighttime visit to Jack's house explains alot about her. The cast plays it all very well. Even Ed Burns bring a human side to his role, instead of being the immature thirty year old scared to grow up. But David Krumholtz as Abe is the heart and soul of the work. He is sweet, a generally good man, and all he wants is to see his wife. Not for revenge or to yell at her, but just to find out why. And I must give credit to Kevin Kash who plays KK, Jack's landlord. It's a small role, but an important one, and Kash plays his part well. As the comic relief from some of the drama, Kash managed to make me laugh a little bit. He did what he needed to do well.

And then there is the most important character of all, New York City. Burns loves New York City, and there are many famous New York landmarks here, including Katz's Deli. There was a not so subtle commentary on big corparations bringing down small businesses, which seemed sort of misplaced. It was obvious that Burns was trying to bring some sort of message across, but failed. It's clear that he loves landmark's in the city, from all the places that he eats outside of, but it didn't really fit with the rest. "Looking for Kitty" is better than "The Groomsmen," but not by very much. I admired Burns for the fact that he was trying to break away a little bit from his regular story, but sadly he ends up right back to the formula about halfway through.
I've come not to expect anything new from Burns. Maybe next time.